On Tue, 2015-11-24 at 21:35 +0800, Lan Tianyu wrote: > Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu <tianyu....@intel.com> > --- > linux-headers/linux/vfio.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/linux-headers/linux/vfio.h b/linux-headers/linux/vfio.h > index 0508d0b..732b0bd 100644 > --- a/linux-headers/linux/vfio.h > +++ b/linux-headers/linux/vfio.h > @@ -495,6 +495,22 @@ struct vfio_eeh_pe_op { > > #define VFIO_EEH_PE_OP _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 21) > > + > +#define VFIO_FIND_FREE_PCI_CONFIG_REG _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 22) > + > +#define VFIO_GET_PCI_CAP_INFO _IO(VFIO_TYPE, VFIO_BASE + 22) > + > +struct vfio_pci_cap_info { > + __u32 argsz; > + __u32 flags; > +#define VFIO_PCI_CAP_GET_SIZE (1 << 0) > +#define VFIO_PCI_CAP_GET_FREE_REGION (1 << 1) > + __u32 index; > + __u32 offset; > + __u32 size; > + __u8 cap; > +}; > + > /* ***************************************************************** */ > > #endif /* VFIO_H */
I didn't seen a matching kernel patch series for this, but why is the kernel more capable of doing this than userspace is already? These seem like pointless ioctls, we're creating a purely virtual PCI capability, the kernel doesn't really need to participate in that. Also, why are we restricting ourselves to standard capabilities? That's often a crowded space and we can't always know whether an area is free or not based only on it being covered by a capability. Some capabilities can also appear more than once, so there's context that isn't being passed to the kernel here. Thanks, Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html